News outlets amend lawsuit alleging continued press exclusions by Trump White House

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s White House, asserting that the administration continues to exclude them from the press pool, Oval Office and Air Force One trips. The complaint argues that once the White House opens these spaces to selected journalists, it may not bar outlets because of their coverage, citing violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.

The filing seeks a court declaration that the President’s ban and subsequent exclusions are unlawful and requests permanent injunctive relief for the three outlets. The request follows a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Timothy P. Kelly, which restored the outlets’ White House access after finding the original ban likely discriminatory.

Outside counsel Ted Boutrous warned the administration that further legal action would follow if the exclusions persisted, asking for confirmation that the White House would abandon any policy of excluding CNN from the Oval Office and Air Force One. The administration has not responded to the request.

According to the amended complaint, CNN has been barred from Air Force One on all six occasions it was scheduled to serve as the designated TV pooler since the ban was announced on September 18. Politico has missed two out-of-town pool assignments, and MS NOW has not participated in the secondary television pool since that date.

A White House official, when asked for comment, said, "the Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office." The administration complied with Judge Kelly’s order and reinstated press credentials late last month, but the outlets contend that the continued exclusions constitute retaliation.

The lawsuit also references a related case involving The Associated Press, which challenged a separate restriction on press access. An appeals court panel partially lifted a stay in that case, noting that restricted presidential spaces are not traditional First Amendment forums, though the ruling was non-binding.

Boutrous said the exclusions are intended to punish and chill coverage the President does not favor, making it harder for the press to report on significant events for the public benefit. He added that the three outlets will continue to pursue their rights in court.